It makes a HUGE difference.
No one is denying that Christians sin.
What is being denied is that Christians DO NOT sin, and that Christians have no choice BUT to sin.
It's called loving God. Maybe you've heard of such a thing?
Was the fall necessary ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
It makes a HUGE difference.
No one is denying that Christians sin.
What is being denied is that Christians DO NOT sin, and that Christians have no choice BUT to sin.
It's called loving God. Maybe you've heard of such a thing?
genuineoriginal
New member
If you know the truth, there is no reason to work so hard to avoid it.
The "heavens" that God created in the six days being the physical sky and outer space is the literal interpretation of the text.
If your doctrine teaches otherwise, then you need to reexamine your doctrine.
No, that idea came entirely from your own mind, and any blasphemy you imagine that your own mind is guilty of is your concern and not mine.
Since that doctrine comes from your mind and not from me, it is up to you to defend it.
If it is merely another strawman argument that you are creating, then you need to own up to it and abandon that line of argument.
I agree, which is why I keep saying you should abandon that strawman argument that you created.
I have no idea, since "God trying to prove Himself righteous" is not my argument, it is yours, and I have no reason to do anything except condemn it as a non-Biblical argument that you came up with to divert from the truth of my argument.
No, He is not trying to prove to us that we are evil.
That is what the accuser (HaSatan) does.
Please spend a bit more time in trying to understand what the actual text of the Bible teaches and less time just going along with the doctrines of your particular denomination.
At that point, it is merely a theoretical free-will and not an actual free-will.
If you know anything about the scientific method, you know a theory is meaningless without any attempt to prove or disprove that theory.
Yes, that is the fundamental basis for "Open Theism".
No. God proved that when He said, "Let there be light" and created the foundation of the universe ex nihilo.
I never made that claim.
Please pay attention.
Adam had to disobey God in order to prove that mankind has the ability to disobey God.
Free-will is the ability that God gave mankind to allow mankind to choose whether they would obey or disobey God.
I have heard that before.
Spoiler
You are certainly responsible for your own ignorance and your refusal to stick on topic with my argument.
Nope.
Please pay attention.
My premise is that Adam disobeying God is the proof that mankind has been given the ability to make the free-will choice of whether to obey God or disobey God.
Sorry to jump in here but I can't resist...
How can it not make a difference?
If you do not choose to sin, is it really sin?
Conversely, if you think you love God but in reality you have no ability to hate Him, then is it really love?
If a man wants a woman to love him and puts her in a house with bars on all the doors and windows so that she cannot leave, is her presence in the house evidence of the woman's devotion or evidence of the man's mental illness?
Choice makes all the difference! The ability to choose is what makes a being moral. Without the ability to do otherwise then no action can be considered right or wrong. A gun going off is not a moral issue because the gun doesn't decide (i.e. choose) to go off. What sense would it make to accuse the gun of wrong doing? It's the person who chose to pull the trigger who has done something of a moral nature, not the gun. Guns kill but only people murder, the difference is choice and what a difference it is!
Clete
genuineoriginal
New member
Why should I?
Your request seems to be about as important as asking how to jump the Grand Canyon with a motorcycle.
That is unimportant.
What is important is what should you do when you do sin and what you should do when you feel like doing something that is a sin.
Don't be obtuse.
It is not that we love God it has to do with that he loved us first.
genuineoriginal
New member
There are many people who God loves that will turn from Him in order to sin.
It is our love for God that guides us in turning away from sin and towards Salvation.
Are you saying that Israel did/does not love God yet they deny the Son?
1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Sorry, no. That's the TRADITIONAL interpretation of the text. What it ACTUALLY says shows something different.
https://kgov.com/what-is-the-firmament-of-day-2-aka-the-raqia
Maybe you should look in the mirror?
genuineoriginal
New member
What does God say to do to show Him our love of God?
Deuteronomy 11:1 1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway. |
What does the New Testament say is proof of the love of God?
1 John 5:3 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. |
If our love of God is great enough, will we allow anything to get us to turn away from it?
Romans 8:38-39 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. |
genuineoriginal
New member
Yeah, Walt Brown is completely wrong on that one.
He is twisting the word translated as "firmament" to suit his own beliefs, changing it from properly describing the dome of the sky above us into his claim that it means the ground below us.
I am not telling Clete to do anything I have not already done.
Your ideology falls apart within the scriptures. You can't deny their meanings and still stand. Where is original love? You are not going to show God anything.
genuineoriginal
New member
My ideology is consistent with scriptures, so it may be your "meanings" that make you believe they are inconsistent.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
And therein lies the root problem.
You're basing your beliefs on this matter on a translation of a translation, when preferably it would be better to look at the original language and see what it says, and then base your beliefs on that.
"Firmament" is an English word that comes from a LATIN word, not Hebrew. The Old Testament was originally written in HEBREW, not Latin.
Sorry, but the Hebrew word that was translated into the Latin "firmamentum" doesn't only apply to the sky.
[/QUOTE]
According to whom?
You?
That would be "firmament (raqia) of the heavens," not "firmament."
The fact that there's a distinction between the two, "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens" should clue you in to what each of them means.
The idea that it ONLY refers to the sky comes from the TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING of the text, NOT the text itself.
'Raqqa,' the root form of the word for 'raqia' means to pound out.
And 'raqia' means:
| Strong's h7549 - Lexical: רָקִיעַ - Transliteration: raqia - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: raw-kee'-ah - Definition: an extended surface, expanse. - Origin: From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky. - Usage: firmament. - Translated as (count): the firmament (8), in the firmament (3), of the firmament (3), a firmament (1), from above the firmament (1), in firmament (1). |
You're limiting "heavens" to outer space is your doctrine, not the text.
See! I can repeat myself too!
Accusing God of orchestrating sin is blasphemy, by definition.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. That's what the phrase "by definition" means.
Again, I do not make strawman arguments. I am not responsible for your lack of ability to connect the dots.
You deny positing that God orchestrated Adam's fall?
What in the world are we talking about then?
You should keep in mind that all of your posts are still here for everyone to read.
YOU brought up the issue of God's righteousness when you said the following...
"You appear to be hinting that only an evil god would orchestrate the fall and condemn most of humanity to eternal damnation in order to gain the praise and glory from the small remnant that were predestined for salvation."
It's in post #84
Besides, it's the same issue anyway! How can you not see that?
Free will is what makes a persons actions moral in nature and whether that person is you, me, Hitler, the Apostle John, Lucifer, or God Himself, if they have no ability to do otherwise then their action is not free and it is not right or wrong!
Further, if man does not have free will then for God to punish any action of his would be fundamentally unjust and so once again, proving man's will is free is, in essence, proving God's righteousness. It's all the exact same issue! When you are discussing free will, you are discussing morality. "Does man have a free will?" and "Is man a moral agent?" is the same question!
That is what the law is for and it was God who gave the law.
Romans 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, [f]kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our [g]tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
Fool
This is utter stupidity.
So God has never sinned. Is His free will theoretical?
Go on! Don't be scared of your own doctrine! Say it! "God might or might not have a free will. We can't know for sure until He commits an act of evil!"
Say it! I dare you!
What?
It is the fundamental premise of a moral being!
Are you just making this up as you go?
How do you know that God could have chosen not to create the universe?
MAKE THE ARGUMENT!!!
Liar! You make the claim again in the next two sentences!
Double talking idiot.
See if you can stop me from saying whatever I decide to say whenever I decide to say it.
Go hide yourself and watch to see if you giving me orders changes my behavior in the slightest.
As are you.
So then why did you just ignore the end of my post where I said the following....
"Okay fine then make the argument. I mean, actually write out the argument that concludes with the statement, "Therefore, if Adam (or anyone else) had not fallen and evil did not exist, we could not know that we have a free will.""
You ignored it because you are completely incapable of making such an argument. There is no such argument because it's utter stupidity.
Prove me wrong. I dare you to try.
You won't though.
Clete
How is it that you can show God anything?
1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Stop denying or continue to work it out.
We would be blind without eyesight without the fall. Thus the fall was absolutely necessary.
Originally posted by Cntrysner...What difference does it make as far as in once or anytime? Tell me how you can not sin.
Irresistible?
Because it doesn't matter when you sin or how many times you sin but you will.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
There is a middle ground. I would call it man after the fall.
Your choice of words here does not reflect God. God's grace doesn't bound man because His grace is just and man will stay by choice because of God's grace.
Yes we chose but not totally. Cause and effect. Amen
Irresistible?
Because it doesn't matter when you sin or how many times you sin but you will.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
There is a middle ground. I would call it man after the fall.
Your choice of words here does not reflect God. God's grace doesn't bound man because His grace is just and man will stay by choice because of God's grace.
Yes we chose but not totally. Cause and effect. Amen
Indeed! You make a good point! Why should I ever opologize to someone who thinks everything I do was predestined by God?
On the contrary, if you have no ability to do otherwise, you never sin at all. There is no morality in a world without free will.
The only reason Paul's statements make sense is in the context of free will. There exists within men a dual nature, one that desires to do one thing and another that chooses to do otherwise. In other words, Paul's statements here acknowledge the choice and that his flesh is what chooses badly.
If you don't explain what you mean then this one liner isn't helpful or even meaningful for that matter.
What is the middle ground and why would you call it man after the fall?
Saying it doesn't make it so, Cntrysner.
I find it so fascinating how people refuse to answer what should be the easiest of questions or to take on an issue based on its own premises if it in any way threatens their doctrine. They'll avoid it like the plague, twisting themselves into whatever contorted knots that are necessary to avoid the simplest things.
It absolutely does reflect the god of Calvinism (which does not exist) and of any other form of theistic determinism. And the question obviously answers itself, if the woman cannot leave then her presence in the house is NOT evidence of her devotion. She may be completely devoted and might love her captor very much but you won't be able to tell because of her having not left the house because she has no ability to leave.
Now if you want to say that this doesn't reflect the God you believe in then simply making the claim isn't good enough. You invoke the concept of justice, which is an excellent start! Why is it so difficult to simply start with justice as your primary premise in the first place? There is no biblical or rational reason to insist that God predestined anyone's sin. It just flat out is not taught in the bible - period and there is no other (i.e. rational) reason to insist on it either so why cling to it? Isn't it obvious that moral actions must be chosen? Isn't that much clear even to children?
How can God be just if He punishes people who perform the very actions that He predestined that they would perform? Indeed, the god of Calvinism is more unjust even than that! Calvinism teaches that people were predestined for either Heaven or Hell based on nothing at all! That it was a completely arbitrary selection of their god's that had nothing to do with the person's actions or beliefs.
“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
By what definition of justice could such a god every be called just?
Clete
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, Walt Brown saying "firmament" means the ground does not make it so.
However, when God says it it does make it so.
Genesis 1:8 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. |
And that is the last post I will make about it in this thread to keep from derailing it.
I'll start a new thread then...